Hopefully gain some insight on Makarov
View Single Post
03-27-2013, 09:01 PM
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Originally Posted by
I don't care much for Messier post-1997 either, but ignoring his career in the previous 18 years is shortchanging him. That's a little bit of a stretch putting Makarov not only ahead of the Moose but at Richard's level. Messier and Richard we saw first hand as two of the greatest players of all-time and two incredibly clutch players that it always seems never failed to show up. You are flirting with the idea of putting Makarov as a top 10 player when the truth is he didn't age terribly well in the grand scheme of things.
I don't get your reasoning. Makarov was a top notch player up until he retired at the age of 36 (SJ was just a mediocre team, and, again, had he been traded to Detroit...). Everything Messier did after the age of 36 was a disaster. So how can you say that Messier aged better than Makarov? Besides, snipers as a general rule have a faster drop-off rate.
As far as peak and prime go, I think this is no contest. Makarov's domination over his peers is something Messier could only dream of. Even if you remove Gretzky and Lemieux from the list of his competitors, Messier still did not dominate his league to a degree that Makarov dominated his. Plus there is this thing called "eye test." Watch them play, compare their technique and skill, and tell me who was a better player.
I'm also not buying the "never failing to show up" argument. Messier's stint in Vancouver pretty much nullifies it. If he "never failed to show up" and felt like he didn't have it in him anymore, he shouldn't have signed that ridiculous contract and retired. Which is what Makarov did, a much more honest and honorable way of concluding your career. You can say that Makarov also took part in some devastating losses (OG80, CC87), but nobody ever blamed him for any of them.
Last edited by Sentinel: 03-27-2013 at
View Public Profile
Visit Sentinel's homepage!
Find More Posts by Sentinel